Fortunately, the software will be able to detect future attempts to unlawfully hack it.

That's what Miss Cleo told me when I called her, anyway.

Executed, but possibly innocent.

While official investigations tend to stop when someone is put to death, and there certainly won't (and can't) be another trial after, there are a lot of cases were people have strong evidence that suggests that they're innocent. In cases where to find someone guilty, there needs to be no reasonable doubt, there is quite a bit of reasonable doubt presented here.

They asked for something in computer science, though. Geek Squad involves very little computer or science.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Somewhere, in the third world, kids are playing with Buckyballs and Jarts that could no longer be sold here. And I bet the majority, who don't have punctured feet and magnets attaching to each other through the intestinal wall, are having more fun than we're allowed to have here.

The fact that they're asking isn't wrong - the fact that they're asking is forced. If you own a trademark, and you don't defend it when it's infringed upon, you run the risk of losing that trademark. That means that if they let this go without so much as a letter, then John Danielson's Alabama Whiskey can use an identical looking bottle (except for the name) and put it on store shelves, and Jack Daniels would be unable to legally stop them. That's why they're doing this - the fact that they approached it without threatening, with offers to help, and the like, is very courteous, and really unheard of in today's society. Kudos here to Jack Daniels.

Or, as the article says, this isn't a strictly one year deal. The increases are going to be an annual increase with a multi-year commitment. It mentions that the corps could be increased to 10,000 within four years. It sounds like (although the information both in the article, and the White House's press release on it are both inadequate to confirm), that this is a one-time investment for a multi-year program.

Wait, Google made you give Yahoo your real name before you could post comments there? How did that work? Or is that a separate indictment of Google and Yahoo?

If you think the golden arch crowd isn't rough in the states, you obviously haven't been to an inner-city McDonald's.

"Another journalism major enters the workforce."

On the plus side, people got back to their cars 45 seconds before Nicolas Cage made off with them.

...it will be interesting to see how software companies respond. I guarantee you that the ability to resell software will need to be accounted for by companies needing to make a profit in some way.

I get the feeling that this might eventually create more companies going with limited licensing - i.e. updates for one year from the date of purchase, things like that. Anti-virus companies will be all set, since they already do that. Games like World of Warcraft? They charge you monthly anyway, so they're not going to have to adapt.

Given how much software is sold now with unlimited license, something is going to have to give. Either prices for that license will go up, companies will go the route of, say, EA and just focus their efforts on producing new things they can sell rather than supporting their existing software, or there will be more limited term licenses.

All in all, as much as it sounds like on the surface, I don't think this is a positive thing for consumers in the long run.

It's worth noting, in the ruling attached, that the license that was ruled on was non-transferable as well.

"The licence agreement gives the customer a non-transferable user right for an unlimited period, exclusively for his internal business purposes."

Well, for the lack of government offered health insurance, you can thank the fine legislators who refused to support the act with the public option, as well as the general obstructionist attitude that the GOP has represented in talks about this and any other bills that look to move our country forward.

There were 51 senators in favor of having a public option. That's a majority. However, since we had, at the time, 40 people who refused to participate in the legislative process, there had to be unanimity among the remainder to get anything done. Had just 9 of those 40 (22.5%) decided, hey, this law is going to happen, and I can help it happen, and get my input into making it better, then it could have been a better law.

We have 100 elected senators whose job it is to represent the people, discuss and debate topics of importance to the country, and work to create legislation that comes from those discussions, those debates. If we continue to elect people that are not only going to actively refuse to participate in these debates and discussions, but who are going to try to sandbag the people who ARE trying to actively solve the problems of our country, then it's not a surprise that people are unhappy about certain parts of it.

Netflix isn't discriminating. They're selling a product. Whether that product is of use to someone with a particular disability is going to decide whether or not they purchase that product.

If you're deaf, and if you know that you're not going to get captions out of something you purchase, are you going to buy it? Are they going to require that every single thing that is bought or sold in our country specifically accommodates deaf people?

By that nature, are auto manufacturers going to be required to provide cars that can be driven by the blind? Is Nike going to have to make shoes that can be worn by quadruple amputees? It's a slippery slope when you dictate what a company is or is not allowed to sell.

Without closed captions, a video is not as valuable to someone who can't hear the attached audio. At that point, a decision can be made to purchase or not purchase the product. Netflix isn't fraudulently claiming that their videos contain captions when they don't. There is no barrier that stops people with disabilities from purchasing their product. There is nothing that stops people from using their own third party software to convert speech to captions.

With that in mind, people who are hard of hearing or deaf have a choice. They can purchase the product, which is advertised as is, or they can choose not to. The ADA requires that accommodations are available for accessibility of stores - it makes no claims over whether the products said stores are selling needs to be what people with disabilities would want. Otherwise, Wal-Mart would be in violation for selling pogo sticks, because clearly, a quadraplegic would not be able to use one. Barnes and Noble would be in violation for selling books, because illiterate people who are such because of a learning disability would not be able to read them. Certainly Best Buy can't sell car stereos without requiring that they have a display that shows all of the lyrics of every song they play.

One good discount method - AMC has some "Premium" theatres (YMMV, as there may not be one near you). It's about $20 a ticket, but you get free soda and popcorn, which makes it worthwhile if you were planning to get that anyway. They also have more comfortable seating than their normal theatres, and don't allow kids in. The way to go if you're planning to go into a diabetic coma and eat fattening popcorn with lots of fake butter while you watch a movie.